Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Because the plaintiff's motion was based, in part, upon evidence which had not been before the court at the time of the original motion, it was a motion to renew (see, Wile v Wile, 100 A.D.2d 932, 934). Although leave to renew should generally be denied where the movant fails to offer a reasonable excuse for the failure to submit the additional facts on the original motion (see, Caffe v Arnold, 104 A.D.2d 352), a court may, in its discretion, "grant renewal even upon facts known to the movant at the time of the original motion" (Esa v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 89 A.D.2d 865, 866; see also, Pinto v Pinto, 120 A.D.2d 337; Jet Asphalt Corp. v Consolidated Edison Co., 114 A.D.2d 489; Vitale v La Cour, 96 A.D.2d 941). We cannot say that the granting of renewal in this case constituted an improvident exercise of discretion. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.